Deepwater Oil Spill - Oh Shit...

[MooseFET]

On Jun 21, 2:36 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Jun 20, 12:29 pm, MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:

Setting aside the 20 Billion makes no change to the portion of the
total cost that the profits from BP will cover. It actually saves a
fair chunk of money because a third party will be handling much
of the work on paying out the claims.

It saves money in the same way that giving Michele Obama your credit
card to buy your clothes saves you money.

It save money to not have the situation burn up money on an army
or lawyers.

It mostly just means that the payments will be made without concern to
their effectiveness or merit, by someone who has no interest in
either: Mr. Obama's pay czar. The pay czar's interest is to pay
quickly, often, and to as many people as possible, deserving or not.

The folks doing it are not "Obama's pay czar". IIRC they are the same
folks
that did it after 911. These are folks who know how to do this sort
of thing.

The really good thing about Mr. Obama extorting $20B from BP is that
the government gets control of the $20B, and so can spend it faster,
and buy more votes.

Obama doesn't end up controlling it. He may get some extra votes
for having put adults in charge but nothing more.

 

On Jun 21, 6:50 am, MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:

On Jun 21, 2:36 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Jun 20, 12:29 pm, MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:

Setting aside the 20 Billion makes no change to the portion of the
total cost that the profits from BP will cover.  It actually saves a
fair chunk of money because a third party will be handling much
of the work on paying out the claims.

It saves money in the same way that giving Michele Obama your credit
card to buy your clothes saves you money.

It save money to not have the situation burn up money on an army
or lawyers.

You assume that BP would do that. There's no evidence they are or
will, and why on earth would they if handing out money were cheaper?
But, they have every right to weed out legitimate claims from
illegitimate, a right which they've now lost.

So far they're paying all comers far faster than anyone has ever done
before. They've spent $2B already.

It mostly just means that the payments will be made without concern to
their effectiveness or merit, by someone who has no interest in
either: Mr. Obama's pay czar.  The pay czar's interest is to pay
quickly, often, and to as many people as possible, deserving or not.

The folks doing it are not "Obama's pay czar".

No, it /is/ Obama's pay czar. Mr. Obama's appointed Kenneth
Feinberg, /the/ pay czar, the appointee used to dictate bankers'
compensation.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65F5KI20100616

 IIRC they are the same folks
that did it after 911.  These are folks who know how to do this sort
of thing.

The really good thing about Mr. Obama extorting $20B from BP is that
the government gets control of the $20B, and so can spend it faster,
and buy more votes.

Obama doesn't end up controlling it.  He may get some extra votes
for having put adults in charge but nothing more.

What the President of the United States has done is extort $20B from a
private company without due process of law. He's first implicitly
accused them of criminality through his Justice Department, then
demanded money. It's dictatorial, it's illegal, and unseemly.

Every accused in the United States--even a murderer--is entitled to a
fair trial, and an adjudication of the facts in a court of law if he
needs it. This is exactly why we have courts, and why the
Constitution guarantees every citizen--corporate or otherwise--his
right to use them. That's a basic civil right. BP has not gotten
this. We don't even know at this point whether it was BP's fault,
partially, or someone else's.

Instead, the President has appointed himself the nation's highest
vigilante--judge, jury, and executioner--with the Congress as his
salivating lynch mob.

Obviously great harm has been caused, and BP must pay their share.

So far BP has shown every sign of singlehandedly making good the great
harm they and/or their partners caused. It is utterly unfair, unjust,
and illegal to fine them arbitrarily, without chance of defense or
even a determination that they're the ones responsible.

This was truly a disgusting, tyrannical act, the act of a dictator,
not a President.

James Arthur

 

[DrParnassus]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 07:26:34 -0400, JW <none@dev.null> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:42:16 -0700 (PDT) dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote in
Message id:
15473ffb-3bb1-4034-a5c6-3dd7b77d3e59@s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:

On Jun 20, 3:11 pm, Penis <Pere...@hereforlongtime.org> wrote:



Great minds think alike.

That thinking being utterly retarded compared to the rest of mankind.

Nice job of jumping onto the 40 IQ and below barge, retard boy.

You should be their Yeoman.

 

[DrParnassus]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 06:35:08 -0500, "amdx" <amdx@knology.net> wrote:

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:4C1EDC70.DFA52948@Hovnanian.com...
Copacetic wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 19:30:53 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote:

Why is it that so few people raise an eyebrow over a death penalty
sentence for an individual but scream about rights and justice when a
corporate death penalty is considered?

Because the chance that it will bring down whole world markets is too
high.

Doubtful. Liquidate the company and let others pick up the assets and
continue to operate them. Life and production goes on.


That would have been a great idea for the car companies, they could have
renegotiated there contracts and gotten away from there medical and
retirement
liabilities.
With BP, they have strong earnings. We want them to continue so their
profits
can be used to pay losses associated with the spill and cleanup.

Mike

Trust me, none of these dopes have enough of a clue to understand the

bigger picture.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:42:16 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Jun 20, 3:11 pm, Penis <Pere...@hereforlongtime.org> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:36:17 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jun 20, 12:29 pm, MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:

Setting aside the 20 Billion makes no change to the portion of the
total cost that the profits from BP will cover. It actually saves a
fair chunk of money because a third party will be handling much
of the work on paying out the claims.

It saves money in the same way that giving Michele Obama your credit
card to buy your clothes saves you money.

It is not about money, dumbfuck. It is about PROCESSING efficiency. A
barge full of contaminant is more effective at timely clean-up than a
barge that is filled, but 40% of that fill is water.

We're talking about the $20B fund Obama extracted from BP. Not
Costner's centrifuge.

But speaking of processing efficiency, how long will it take to fill a
barge at 50-100GPM?

Speaking about processing efficiency, how long will it take the government to
pay the first dime to those who need it? It's been a couple of months now,
and Obummer still can't come to skipping a round of golf.

He's going to use part of that 20B to buy himself a yacht.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:28:48 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com>
wrote:

Copacetic wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 19:30:53 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote:

Why is it that so few people raise an eyebrow over a death penalty
sentence for an individual but scream about rights and justice when a
corporate death penalty is considered?

Because the chance that it will bring down whole world markets is too
high.

Doubtful. Liquidate the company and let others pick up the assets and
continue to operate them. Life and production goes on.

Continue to pump and sell oil? *THAT'S* dirty! Obama would never let that
happen.

The needs of the many.

You could call that socialism or the ends justify the means. Either way,
not what I'd expect from anyone serious about market economies and law
and order.

You even dare to utter those words when talking about the Chicago mob?

The goddamned supreme court decision that allows them to illicitly
search a car or person should be thrown out, and that judge should be
retired.

Methinks he doth protest too much. You or one of your friends got caught
holding? ;-)

Holding what? ;-)

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 21:54:40 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:46:43 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 22:53:19 -0700, Winston <Winston@bigbrother.net> wrote:

On 6/19/2010 7:30 PM, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
BP has had 760 OSHA violations to Exxon's one. With a safety record that
bad, perhaps it would be better to shut them down and let the other oil
companies (the ones that have better operating records) bid for their
assets.

Even if the liquidation sale doesn't cover the damages they have caused,
getting them out of the natural resources business would be worthwhile.

Why is it that so few people raise an eyebrow over a death penalty
sentence for an individual but scream about rights and justice when a
corporate death penalty is considered?

Corporations are only considered people WRT rights,
not responsibilities.

Nonsense.

Really? Consider Love Canal. Consider Bhopal.

Considered. Next?

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 03:47:11 -0700 (PDT), MooseFET <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:

On Jun 21, 5:24 am, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 12:34:03 -0500, "amdx" <a...@knology.net> wrote:

"MooseFET" <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote in message
news:1cefe7a4-ddd0-422b-a51a-f78988489231@s6g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

snip

The choice is, do you want the profits from BP to pay the costs or do you
want the taxpayers to pay the costs .

Setting aside the 20 Billion makes no change to the portion of the
total cost
that the profits from BP will cover. It actually saves a fair chunk
of money
because a third party will be handling much of the work on paying out
the claims.

I don't think that will save BP money unless you think that the third party
will pay out less in claims. I think the third party will just use part of
the $20M as operating expenses.

Make that $20B. Certainly, Obummer's cronies will come out very well off
indeed. Were I BP, I'd wash my hands at $20B and let the courts go after more
(it will take forever, if it can even be done). Government wants to handle
it, let them.

After the record of the republicans on crony capitalism, his hiring
practices will be a breath of fresh air. For once competence will
matter.

As always, you're full of shit. Obama is all about cronyism (check out who he
has working for him - all your friends from GS). Then there's Chris Dodd and
Barney Frank. Yeah, all Republicans.

Obama's Chicago mob has already raided the treasury and will use the $20B from
BP to clear their palate for the next course. Maybe you'll just kill yourself
in November.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:20:28 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Jun 20, 5:53 pm, krw wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 15:12:22 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jun 20, 5:29 pm, krw wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:42:16 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

Speaking about processing efficiency, how long will it take the government to
pay the first dime to those who need it? It's been a couple of months now,
and Obummer still can't come to skipping a round of golf.

That's a good point.  Mr. Obama prevented LA Gov. Bobby Jindal
building his berms for at least a month, a month when the oil was
still offshore.  Those berms could've prevented a lot of damage,
saving wildlife and cleanup money too.  Mr. Obama still hasn't
suspended the Jones Act.  He's the slow one, not BP.

Re: efficiency, it depends what you're optimizing.  I have every
confidence the government can spend any amount of money faster than BP
and get far less for it.  But, they'll buy votes with BP's money, BP
will still be liable for the rest, and blamed for the government's
failings.  To a politician, that's very efficient.  It's awful.

But *will* BP be liable for the rest?  AIUI, their liability is capped at
something ridiculous like $75M.  If BP decides to say "screw you, Obummer",
how long would it take to get another dime?

Under 33 U.S.C. § 2702, BP's liable for removal costs + $75M, unless
the result of “gross negligence or willful misconduct.” So yes,
they're being generous. OTOH, our confiscatorial Congress was huffing
about passing an ex post facto law to eliminate that limit.

How long would that be in the courts?

What surprises me is the lawyerly assumption that BP is 100% liable
even though they weren't drilling the hole. There were 126 people on
board the Deepwater Horizon when it blew, only 6 of whom worked for
BP. ISTM the driller and cementing contractors bear the brunt. If
they protested the procedure was unsafe, all the more so--that'd mean
they did something dangerous, knowingly. That's reckless disregard.

Deep pockets.

If you want to argue BP approved the work, well, so did Obama's
Mineral Management Services under his MMS secretary. Who at this
government's MMS approved this well, who inspected it? What managers
supervised it? Were procedures followed? Why weren't they being
grilled at Congress' hearings?

Why did they just get a safety award from Obama?

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:47:55 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:42:16 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Jun 20, 3:11 pm, Penis <Pere...@hereforlongtime.org> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:36:17 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jun 20, 12:29 pm, MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:

Setting aside the 20 Billion makes no change to the portion of the
total cost that the profits from BP will cover. It actually saves a
fair chunk of money because a third party will be handling much
of the work on paying out the claims.

It saves money in the same way that giving Michele Obama your credit
card to buy your clothes saves you money.

It is not about money, dumbfuck. It is about PROCESSING efficiency. A
barge full of contaminant is more effective at timely clean-up than a
barge that is filled, but 40% of that fill is water.

We're talking about the $20B fund Obama extracted from BP. Not
Costner's centrifuge.

But speaking of processing efficiency, how long will it take to fill a
barge at 50-100GPM?

Speaking about processing efficiency, how long will it take the government to
pay the first dime to those who need it? It's been a couple of months now,
and Obummer still can't come to skipping a round of golf.


He's going to use part of that 20B to buy himself a yacht.

That's some yacht! I guess the Sequoia isn't big enough for a full eighteen
holes.

 

[DrParnassus]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:10:34 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

As always, you're full of shit.

krw has a fetish!

Come on, Johnny, where is your netsacatpolice post?

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 16:35:04 -0700, DrParnassus
<DrParnassus@hereforlongtime.org> wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:10:34 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:


As always, you're full of shit.

krw has a fetish!

I knew I'd get you excited, AlwaysWrong.

Come on, Johnny, where is your netsacatpolice post?

Get ahold of yourself, Dimbulb. Then log off mommy's computer and go to play
in her hamper. You'll feel much better.

 

[DrParnassus]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 19:08:38 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com>
wrote:

You think that was a GOOD THING?
Red Cross almost got shut down by Congress
for collecting billions and not paying it out.

Only about three orders of magnitude off there, you GODDAMNED RETARDED
LYING FUCKTARD!

They were going to use the money to ENLARGE
their ""non-profit"" massively rather than pay it out.

Hey,look! The retarded fucking putz got lucky and got one right!

 

[DrParnassus]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 19:08:38 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com>
wrote:

The point was that the BILLIONS were
donated FOR 9/11, not for Red Cross
to bankroll for enlargement or future
disasters.

Still wrong on the numbers... as usual.

 

[DrParnassus]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 19:08:38 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com>
wrote:

Collecting BILLIONS for 9/11 and
using it otherwise would be a SCAM.

No, idiot, it is called fraud, but you getting the numbers so wrong is
called utter stupidity.

 

[DrParnassus]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 19:08:38 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com>
wrote:

Did you know that our government passed
a law LIMITING PAYOUTS FOR OIL SPILLS?

BP is immune beyond that figure.

No, idiot. There are all kinds of things that they ARE responsible for
over and above the $75M figure, you are too goddamned stupid to grasp the
fact that it goes beyond the direct, up front dollar liability.

 

[DrParnassus]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 19:37:32 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com>
wrote:

Archie: Do you THINK you act like a mature adult, or a spaz?

I think that you act like a total retard, and examination of your posts
of late would make for easy proof, you immature little wussified bitch.

What kind of role models did you have?

The best.

The Tazmanian Devil?

Him too. Don't expect a retarded twit like you to understand,
however. I also like The Tex Avery collection.

Your style is much like a neurotic, precocious
idealistic teenager who thinks they know it
all but they have absolutely NO practical real
world experience and no people skills so they
are bitter at people in general.

Sounds like projection to me.

Where along the spectrum from ADHD
to Autism to Aspergers to Schizophrenia
does your condition fit in?

Sounds like projection to me. Have you completed you stalking regimen
yet today?

Bwuahahahahahahahahahaha!

 

[JosephKK]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:04:51 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 21:54:40 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:46:43 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 22:53:19 -0700, Winston <Winston@bigbrother.net> wrote:

On 6/19/2010 7:30 PM, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
BP has had 760 OSHA violations to Exxon's one. With a safety record that
bad, perhaps it would be better to shut them down and let the other oil
companies (the ones that have better operating records) bid for their
assets.

Even if the liquidation sale doesn't cover the damages they have caused,
getting them out of the natural resources business would be worthwhile.

Why is it that so few people raise an eyebrow over a death penalty
sentence for an individual but scream about rights and justice when a
corporate death penalty is considered?

Corporations are only considered people WRT rights,
not responsibilities.

Nonsense.

Really? Consider Love Canal. Consider Bhopal.

Considered. Next?

Please describe how the corporations were "punished", when and in what
legal proceeding. Provide backup for any claim that the corporations got
so much as a fine that they actually paid.

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 19:37:32 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
<greegor47@gmail.com> wrote:

Archie: Do you THINK you act like a mature adult, or a spaz?

Is his name really Archie?

Does he have a last name?

John

 

[JosephKK]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 03:47:11 -0700 (PDT), MooseFET <kensmith@rahul.net>
wrote:

On Jun 21, 5:24 am, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 12:34:03 -0500, "amdx" <a...@knology.net> wrote:

"MooseFET" <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote in message
news:1cefe7a4-ddd0-422b-a51a-f78988489231@s6g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

snip

The choice is, do you want the profits from BP to pay the costs or do you
want the taxpayers to pay the costs .

Setting aside the 20 Billion makes no change to the portion of the
total cost
that the profits from BP will cover. It actually saves a fair chunk
of money
because a third party will be handling much of the work on paying out
the claims.

I don't think that will save BP money unless you think that the third party
will pay out less in claims. I think the third party will just use part of
the $20M as operating expenses.

Make that $20B. Certainly, Obummer's cronies will come out very well off
indeed. Were I BP, I'd wash my hands at $20B and let the courts go after more
(it will take forever, if it can even be done). Government wants to handle
it, let them.

After the record of the republicans on crony capitalism, his hiring
practices will be a breath of fresh air. For once competence will
matter.

No. No. No. Crony socialism is ever so much worse. Do you want your
P.E. watered down to where it is less than a high school diploma?